Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Black does not provide for “controlled rotation of a weighted component” and that Black does not describe any “’trigger event’ that causes a discrete rotation of the weighted component”. Examiner disagrees with these arguments and notes that Applicant appears to rely on limitations that are not recited in the claims and a reading of the claims that does not comport with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. The portion of the claims the Applicant appears to rely on recites “wherein the controller is configured to rotate the weighted component from a start position to an end position to shift the center of mass of the controller in response to a trigger event.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require some sort of feedback loop, or a calculated movement that produces a measured weight shift or any of the other unrecited claim limitations that Applicant obliquely asserts in the remarks filed October 24, 2025. Furthermore, there is a weight shift triggered by the connected videogame in Black as noted below. If Applicant desires narrower claim limitations that comport with the unrecited and not clearly articulated limitations that are argued, Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Murzanski suffer from the same narrow claim construction as noted above regarding Black and are not persuasive for the same reasons. Murzanski recites a controller configured to move a rotatable weight about an axis within a controller. This meets the broadly drafted requirements of the claims. However valid the distinctions between the prior art and the disclosed invention in this application may be, these differences are not reflected in the current claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2016/0175702 by Black.
Regarding claim 1, Black discloses a controller for a multimedia entertainment system (abstract; fig. 1), the controller comprising: a weighted component connected to the controller (fig. 14 – see weight 710), wherein the weighted component is rotationally movable relative to the controller (para. 59, 69 – see movement of the weight around the circumference of the wheel); and wherein the controller is configured to rotate the weighted component from a start position to an end position to shift the center of mass of the controller in response to a trigger event (para. 50-52, 59, 69 – see weight shifting according to the events in the videogame).
Regarding claim 2, Black discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the start position is different to the end position (fig. 14 – see different end positions of the weight).
Regarding claim 3, Black discloses the controller of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to rotate the weighted component between 0 and 180 degrees relative to an axis of the controller in response to the trigger event (fig. 14 – see rotation of the weight around the circumference of the wheel 710D and 710A).
Regarding claim 4, Black discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to rotate the weighted component between 0 and 360 degrees relative to an axis of the controller in response to the trigger event (fig. 14 – see rotation of the weight around the circumference of the wheel from start to start).
Regarding claim 5, Black discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the trigger event is an output from an application running on a multimedia entertainment system (para. 50-52 – see interaction with gaming application).
Regarding claim 6, Black discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to hold the weighted component at the end position until a second trigger event (para. 50-52 – see interaction with gaming application in multiple instances).
Regarding claim 7, Black discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to hold the weighted component at the end position for at least 0.5 seconds after rotating the weighted component (para. 52 – see the disclosed times for movement of the weight).
Regarding claim 8, Black discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to rotate the weighted component in response to a change of orientation of the controller (para. 82-85 – see orientation control).
Regarding claim 9, Black discloses the controller of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to rotate the weighted component to counteract the change of orientation of the controller (para. 82-85 – see orientation control).
Regarding claim 10, Black discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the end position of the weighted component is determined using an orientation of the controller (para. 82-85 – see orientation control).
Regarding claim 11, Black discloses the controller of claim 10, wherein the controller further comprises an orientation sensor (para. 82-85 – see orientation control via sensors).
Regarding claim 12, Black discloses the controller of claim 1, further comprising a processor configured to: receive an input; and determine an output rotation of the weighted component based at least in part on the input (para. 82-85 – see orientation control via sensors).
Regarding claim 13, Black discloses the controller of claim 12, wherein the input comprises information relating to one or more of the trigger event, an orientation of the controller, a position of the controller, or a speed of movement of the controller (para. 82-85 – see orientation control).
Regarding claim 14, Black discloses the controller of claim 12, further comprising one or more motors configured to selectively rotate the weighted component, wherein the processor is configured to send the output rotation to the one or more motors for actuation (para. 50 – see motor actuation).
Regarding claim 15, Black discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to rotate the weighted component from the start position to the end position at a rate of less than 1 degree per second (para. 52 – see movement speed adjustment disclosing the claimed range and the range is met within stopping and starting of the weight).
Regarding claim 16, Black discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein rotation of the weighted component is operated at a rotation speed determined at least in part by the trigger event (para. 52 – see movement speed adjustment based on triggering event).
Regarding claim 20, Black discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the weighted component is rotatable to shift the center of mass of the controller along a longitudinal axis of the controller (fig. 14; para. 50-52, 59, 69 – see the shifting of the mass, Examiner noting that the shift of the mass from one position to another creates either a completely linear shift or a partial linear shift through a component of a multi axis shift).
Regarding claim 21, Black discloses the controller of claim 20, further comprising a first hand grip and a second hand grip, the first and second hand grips arranged for a user to hold the controller, wherein the longitudinal axis is defined between the first and second hand grips (para. 14 – see the location of the grips and the shift axis as seen between 710D and 710A).
Regarding claim 22, this claim is anticipated by Black as noted above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, Black discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the weight component is rotationally movable at least 360 degrees about an axis of the controller (fig. 7 - see the 360 degrees track for the weight).
Claim(s) 1, 16 and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2005/0085299 by Murzanski.
Regarding claim 1, Murzanski discloses a controller for a multimedia entertainment system (abstract), the controller comprising: a weighted component connected to the controller (fig. 2 element 50), wherein the weighted component is rotationally movable relative to the controller (para. 8-11 – see arc of the mass); and wherein the controller is configured to rotate the weighted component from a start position to an end position to shift the center of mass of the controller in response to a trigger event (para. 27-30 – see control of the mass based on gameplay events).
Regarding claim 16, Murzanski discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein rotation of the weighted component is operated at a rotation speed determined at least in part by the trigger event (para. 27-30 – see control of the mass based on gameplay events).
Regarding claim 18, Murzanski discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the weighted component comprises a first mass on an arm rotatable relative to a pivot point (fig. 3 – see mass, arm and pivot assembly).
Regarding claim 19, Murzanski discloses the controller of claim 18, wherein the first mass is located at a first end of the arm and the pivot point is located at a second end of the arm opposing the first end (fig. 3 – see mass, arm and pivot assembly).
Regarding claim 20, Murzanski discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the weighted component is rotatable to shift the center of mass of the controller along a longitudinal axis of the controller (fig. 3 – see mass, arm and pivot assembly and the ability of the mass to create a linear shift along the axis of the two new resulting center of masses during shift).
Regarding claim 21, Murzanski discloses the controller of claim 20, further comprising a first hand grip and a second hand grip, the first and second hand grips arranged for a user to hold the controller, wherein the longitudinal axis is defined between the first and second hand grips (fig. 3 – see grip section and mass, arm and pivot assembly and the ability of the mass to create a linear shift along the axis of the two new resulting center of masses during shift).
Regarding claim 22, Murzanski discloses this claim is anticipated by Black as noted above regarding claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER J IANNUZZI whose telephone number is (571)272-5793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER J IANNUZZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715